I'm not a fan of the new TSA policies regarding body scans. I remember when people used to joke about the possibility of TSA eventually just having everyone fly naked but recent events reveal how difficult it can be to parody the DHS or TSA. So, I'm pleased to see that there is a line that the the populace is willing to draw when it comes to exchanging freedom for security, but I have two thoughts.
First, this whole thing would actually be rather easy to fix. The answer is image distortion and the fix has been proposed (and, oddly, rejected) already. Why not just fix it? Secondly, where were these proponents of liberty and fighters for human dignity when people were being humiliated at Abu Ghraib, when prisoners were being waterboarded, in response to warrantless wiretapping, when it came time to respond to indefinite detention, when execution (w/o trial) orders for US citizens (not to mention foreigners) were being written? Maybe it reflects America's puritan roots or something but why do body scanning images and pat downs around one's privates trigger a populist uprising when people have been largely silent in the face of far more significant assaults on dignity and freedom? I suppose it's not that surprising that people really only care about their own liberty and dignity, not the general principles, but here's hoping we retain some of the indignation and refusal to take it any more when it's someone else's freedom at stake and when they stand to lose even more than an economy class ticket to Omaha.
ETA: In retrospect, I think that this post probably goes too far in trivializing the extent to which the TSA may be violating civil rights. I think the potential for abuse here is fairly significant, that significant abuses may have occurred and the fact that this kind of privacy violation may become so incredibly common place is very worrisome.This video helped to convince me that TSA violations are *not* simply at one relatively innocuous end of: a spectrum of civil rights violation. Rather, that this kind of thing can happen to such a person in such a circumstance but may instead serve to devalue privacy at a fundamental level: http://is.gd/hT2xo
First, this whole thing would actually be rather easy to fix. The answer is image distortion and the fix has been proposed (and, oddly, rejected) already. Why not just fix it? Secondly, where were these proponents of liberty and fighters for human dignity when people were being humiliated at Abu Ghraib, when prisoners were being waterboarded, in response to warrantless wiretapping, when it came time to respond to indefinite detention, when execution (w/o trial) orders for US citizens (not to mention foreigners) were being written? Maybe it reflects America's puritan roots or something but why do body scanning images and pat downs around one's privates trigger a populist uprising when people have been largely silent in the face of far more significant assaults on dignity and freedom? I suppose it's not that surprising that people really only care about their own liberty and dignity, not the general principles, but here's hoping we retain some of the indignation and refusal to take it any more when it's someone else's freedom at stake and when they stand to lose even more than an economy class ticket to Omaha.
ETA: In retrospect, I think that this post probably goes too far in trivializing the extent to which the TSA may be violating civil rights. I think the potential for abuse here is fairly significant, that significant abuses may have occurred and the fact that this kind of privacy violation may become so incredibly common place is very worrisome.This video helped to convince me that TSA violations are *not* simply at one relatively innocuous end of: a spectrum of civil rights violation. Rather, that this kind of thing can happen to such a person in such a circumstance but may instead serve to devalue privacy at a fundamental level: http://is.gd/hT2xo
6 comments:
Hi,
Well put, though the minor point you made about the solution (distorting the x-ray images) elides some more substantial objections to the scanning machines. First, many people are concerned with the adverse effects of the x-rays themselves(I've heard the striking but no-doubt alarmist phrase, "I don't want to be put in the microwave" a couple of times). While some fears may be hyperbolic, I am nevertheless credulous to the idea that these machines may in fact be dangerous with repeated exposure.
Second, the articles you cite say that distorting the image will remove any possibility for the images to be "titillating." One could still object to having to bear oneself to a stranger even if "titillation" is not a factor. Our bodies are within the jurisdiction of the personal for more than just sexual reasons.
Finally, I rarely find it convincing when people argue "because you didn't stand up for X then, you have no right (or a somehow diminished right) to stand up for X now"--I agree that more people should have been up in arms about the treatment of Guantanamo detainees and the atrocities at Abu Ghraib. It may be ethically inexcusable that having your crotch grabbed leaves a greater impression on most people than even the terrible images from that dungeon. I'm not willing to cast blame on people for this, however, and when it comes to the issue of subjecting children to terrifying physical experiences, comparisons start to look less stark.
Yes, I agree that the radiation concern is a non-trivial matter and the image distortion does nothing to address that.
"One could still object to having to bear oneself to a stranger even if "titillation" is not a factor. Our bodies are within the jurisdiction of the personal for more than just sexual reasons. "
I suppose although I'm not sure how an image that has only a causal link to my body but from which I am not identifiable violates my personal jurisdiction in any more.
also, to be clear, I certainly wasn't suggesting that concerns weren't legitimate, although my Biblical reference perhaps suggested I was trivializing them, because they'd failed to express concerns earlier, only that I'd wished they'd be more consistently concerned about such things.
Funny, I thought I had posted this already:
It's not so much the (potentially distorted) image that concerns me (though I think that it would be someone's right to be concerned merely about this), it's the process of being surveilled that is becoming nearly ubiquitous in society, the 'disciplining' effect that this process can have on the populace, the sense that this surveillance is taking place via ever-more intrusive methods, and the moral framework which seems to suggest that this increasing surveillance is legitimately and without question in our best interest. It is in these ways that I sense that the personal is not merely a sexual sphere (although sexuality is certainly a part of it). You noticed that I'm a 'mysterious stranger'--well, it's not that I'm not worried about an advance from you :)
The PATRIOT act was indeed alarming, but there has also been a democratization of surveillance (think of civilians recording police brutality, whistle-blowers, the work of hackers, and soldiers who take pictures at places like, say, Abu Ghraib [even if they were originally meant to be 'trophy photos']). Today, most surveillance is not actually performed by political authorities, and the oft-repeated 'Big Brother' trope is losing some of the salience it once had. Rather, it is corporations (via credit cards, loyalty grocery-mart cards, contest forms etc) and ourselves/peers (social networking websites, cellphones, blogs) that expose us more and more every day. There are positive and negative consequences to these developments, one negative consequence being the corrosion of the subjective sense of the personal that I would suggest is necessary for the pursuit of happiness.
On the issue of the "things we should have protested" (Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, the PATRIOT act etc), we have no disagreement. I'll just say that consistency is a difficult thing for anyone to maintain (and I'd suggest that we're all complicit in oppressive power structures). In this age of apathy, I'll take what I can get in terms of public involvement...and of course applaud those like you who call for more of it. The "hypocrite!" criticism that Jesus was so fond of, however, isn't, in my experience, the best method for producing change within people.
It's not so much the (potentially distorted) image that concerns me (though I think that it would be someone's right to be concerned merely about this), it's the process of being surveilled that is becoming nearly ubiquitous in society, the 'disciplining' effect that this process can have on the populace, the sense that this surveillance is taking place via ever-more intrusive methods, and the moral framework which seems to suggest that this increasing surveillance is legitimately and without question in our best interest. It is in these ways that I sense that the personal is not merely a sexual sphere (although sexuality is certainly a part of it). You noticed that I'm a 'mysterious stranger'--well, it's not that I'm not worried about an advance from you :)
The PATRIOT act was indeed alarming, but there has also been a democratization of surveillance (think of civilians recording police brutality, whistle-blowers, the work of hackers, and soldiers who take pictures at places like, say, Abu Ghraib [even if they were originally meant to be 'trophy photos']). Today, most surveillance is not actually performed by political authorities, and the oft-repeated 'Big Brother' trope is losing some of the salience it once had. Rather, it is corporations (via credit cards, loyalty grocery-mart cards, contest forms etc) and ourselves/peers (social networking websites, cellphones, blogs) that expose us more and more every day. There are positive and negative consequences to these developments, one negative consequence being the corrosion of the subjective sense of the personal that I would suggest is necessary for the pursuit of happiness.
On the issue of the "things we should have protested" (Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, the PATRIOT act etc), we have no disagreement. I'll just say that consistency is a difficult thing for anyone to maintain (and I'd suggest that we're all complicit in oppressive power structures). In this age of apathy, I'll take what I can get in terms of public involvement...and of course applaud those like you who call for more of it. The "hypocrite!" criticism that Jesus was so fond of, however, isn't, in my experience, the best method for producing change within people.
I don't know why this coment never stays up. Are you deleting it?
I'm not sure which comment you're referring to. I haven't deleted any comments from this post, though.
Post a Comment